Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following contributors to this volume:
Rev. Columba Kelly, O.S.B

Dude's got longevity.

An immediate need following the Second Vatican Council was the composition of new settings for the propers of the Mass in English. A historically significant contribution to this effort was the publication of the Summit Series. This was a partnership between the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the publisher, World Library of Sacred Music. The Pittsburgh Diocese commissioned most of the compositions in this series.

According to undocumented information in the diocesan files, the works in the Summit Series were published between 1965 and 1973, with the majority printed between 1965 and 1968. By 1971, there were one hundred seventy-one pieces in the series, including compositions by Robert Kreutz, Richard Felciano, Henry Papale, Leo Sowerby, Russell Woollen, Robert Sanders, and Pittsburgher Joseph Jenkins. Each composer received a twenty-five dollar commission fee.

Most of the works in the Summit Series required the use of organ, although some were a cappella. The choral arrangements initially favored men’s choirs, but some pieces included sopranos and altos.

Continued changes in the Mass resulted in the Summit Series itself becoming obsolete, especially when the Gradual and Alleluia were replaced with the Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation. Except for a few pieces that have been reprinted as choir anthems, most of the works in the Summit Series are now out of print.

In a memo to Pittsburgh Bishop John Wright dated June 15, 1965, Robert Snow, the Pittsburgh editor of the series, wrote:

“In a few instances some of the composers contacted felt the fee we offered them, $25.00, was too low. I have mentioned this fact to the publisher, Mr. Omer Westendorf, and in those cases in which we think the person in question is worth more, Mr. Westendorf has agreed to add an additional fee to the fee to be paid by the Diocese. He is most interested in the project and is willing to help finance it in this way, even at the risk of substantially reducing any profit he might make.”

Bishop Wright responded on July 3:

“I think it only too true that the fee we offer, $25.00 is too low but I feel, as apparently you do, that it is only proper that publishers enter into this matter also.”

In a November 21, 1966 memo to Bishop Wright, Robert Snow wrote:

“The first of the Summit Series items appeared only about 14 months ago and some of these are now in their second printing. I have also been informed that they are being widely used in various areas of the country. They are also being used a little more here, particularly by those musicians with some professional training. Those who worked under Fr. Rossini, however, show a certain reluctance to accept anything new.”

"Those who worked under Fr. Rossini, however, show a certain reluctance to accept anything new."

Even if they're still under copyright, "fair use" allows you to show excerpts.

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

No one is attempting to sell anything, or make a bunch of copies in order to avoid buying anything, nor attempting to take credit for the work of someone else. The purpose of the use is non-commercial, scholarly, and in good faith.

the nature of the copyrighted work;

Nobody seems to know what this means, since apparently every gosh-darn thing qualifies for insane protectionism. But if it means anything at all, I should think that works composed for a non-profit/religious context and/or in the tradition of serious art music (as opposed to commercially-driven creative works) would be in keeping with the spirit of Fair Use.

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

This is the one I'm ignoring for the moment. Although, if the series as a whole is copyrighted, even an entire work within it could be considered a "portion."

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Since the work is no longer in print, the effect on the market is nill. In fact, a good argument could be made (I would make it) that any use would actually have a positive impact on the potential market, because now at least people have heard of the work, seen it, and may want to obtain it in the future.